In a blatant inversion of reality, the New York Times editorial board is claiming that corporations want to “impose their religious views on their employees — by refusing to permit them contraceptive coverage as required under the Affordable Care Act.” In truth, the so-called contraception mandate imposes the views of President Obama (and the Times editors) on all Americans.

The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare) gives the Executive Branch at least 40 regulatory powers that have the force of law. The Obama administration has exercised this authority to mandate that “most new and renewed health plans” cover “all FDA-approved forms of contraception” without any copayments.

This means that nearly all Americans who pay for health insurance—whether they are private citizens, business owners, or taxpayers—are required to pay for the products that Obama demands. This is not about the legality of these products but forcing everyone to pay for them, whether they want to or not. In short, the mandate denies everyone the freedom to purchase a healthcare policy that covers what they want, instead of what the President wants.

Proponents of the mandate often focus on employees who want these items paid for by health insurance provided by their employers, but they completely ignore the business owners and other employees who don’t want to pay for these items. This is a critical omission, because when government forces all health plans to pay for certain items, all of the insured are forced to pay for them through their insurance premiums.

Thus, regardless of whether the mandate is upheld by the Supreme Court or struck down in part or in whole, the only people who are in danger of having someone else’s views forced down their throats are those who don’t want to pay for these products. Everyone else would still be free to buy them as they wish.

Similarly, CNN recently stated that Rush Limbaugh “called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’ for her support of women’s access to birth control.” This is a gross mischaracterization of the facts. Everyone in the U.S. already had “access to birth control.” What Fluke demanded is that others be forced to pay for it.

Moreover, Fluke argued that others must buy her the precise type of birth control she prefers. She didn’t want to pay for it, and she didn’t want whoever she was having sex with to pay for it. Instead, she wanted others with no role in her sex life to pay for it. That is not about “access” but coercion.

Proponents of the mandate have also been actively spreading falsehoods about the devices and drugs that the mandate covers. The scientific facts are clear that some of these products destroy viable human embryos, which is abortion or tantamount to it.

Yet, NPR, the New York Times, and others are obscuring these facts by misrepresenting scientific studies and uncritically quoting scientists who are donors to Obama—without even identifying them as such. These realities are scrupulously documented in Just Facts’ article, “Does the Obama mandate force you to pay for abortions?”

While people can argue endlessly about the pros and cons of this mandate, let’s make no mistake about who is seeking to impose their views on others: It is the people who support the mandate, not those who don’t want to be forced to pay for products that others demand.

18 thoughts on “Obama’s mandate imposes his views on all Americans”

Excellent statement of FACT. Wait till there is a conservative President that requires his/her HHS to change the regulations to make the use of contraceptions illegal. We have healthcare political for now and into the future and they have planned that it will be so bad that “single payer” will be the only outcome to solve this mess.

Individuals being coerced by the government to pay for things they personally disagree with and/or have religious views against is nothing new. Pacifists are forced to pay taxes to support war. The Federal Government actively pays for and sometimes forces blood transfusions on people that oppose them for religious reasons.

For years the government did research on biological and chemical weapons which I strongly oppose as do many others yet we were “forced” to pay for that research through our taxes.

The US is not a theocracy it is a democracy that is governed by laws. The Governments roll is to work within the laws of the land not the laws of some religious doctrine.

I don’t like it sometimes to be sure. However I have had the opportunity to live under other types of government. None is perfect to be sure but I’ll still take ours and work through the system to make changes.

The issue of contraception is a personal and religious issue. Some support it and some do not. The article claims it is being forced on people. NO ONE, least of all Obamacare, is forcing contraception on those who do not want it. It is simply being provided for, as MANY, probably even a MAJORITY, in the US want it.

The article’s author admonishes Obama and the ACA for provisions in the law because Conservatives and/or religious people do not want it, however others DO want it.

No one is right or wrong here but the article makes the case for the views of its author and those who support those views being correct and alternative views being wrong. This is no different to what he claims Obama and Obamacare is doing to those who do not want it.

You have either completely failed to understand the salient points of this article or are deliberately misrepresenting them.

The article does not claim that contraception is “being forced on people” “who do not want it.” Instead, it accurately states that people are being forced to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients that they do not want to pay for. Big difference.

Furthermore, the article does not “admonish Obama and the ACA for provisions in the law because Conservatives and/or religious people do not want it.” It admonishes the New York Times for falsely claiming that objectors to this policy are forcing their views on others. In fact, these people are simply asking that others stop forcing their views on them.

This must be the most idiotic article on this sight. Actually I’m sorry, calling this an article would be a “blatant inversion of reality” when it’s really just your personal rant that started the moment anyone read your title.

Whether birth control or abortion, is birth control not a medication? Is abortion not a medical procedure? Where’s your article about the other medications and procedures people are being forced to pay? It’s wrong to force people to pay for contraceptives but it’s okay to force people to pay for other medications and medical procedures as long as their approved by you and those who share your beliefs? So you get to decide what is and isn’t acceptable to pay for? And that doesn’t sound the least bit familiar lol.

That is why this is biased to your views, If you really believed in what your saying you could have written an article that might actually get people to listen to you if you were impartial. The points you bring up are legitimate and true, the justifications they use are hypocritical and I can understand where your coming from but really lol

Your not a moral crusader, you’ve picked a side of of the debate that falls in line with your beliefs, but how is that any different than those who support the mandate digging their trenches to?

This is simple competing interests yet you feel more justified for some reason. You clearly disagree with the mandate requiring anyone to purchase birth control and contraceptives against their will, but it’s okay for people to be denied a specific medication or procedure from their healthcare provider because other’s don’t agree? Laughable.

Like Wills and Bergman, you have either completely failed to understand this article, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

The answer to your rhetorical question is simple: The reason I have not written about other cases where “government forces people to pay for other medications and medical procedures” is that no public figure is trying to deny the reality of it.

If government forces people to pay for something, people generally call this what it is. In this case, the New York Times editorial board is trying to claim the exact opposite of the truth, and that is why I held them to account.